I know that there are a few threads out there that talk about similar topics but I just added all the classes up and realized something.
As of right now there are 17 base classes, now if you look at how they lay out you will realize something
Full Warrior: 3- Barbarian, Fighter, Cavalier
Full Arcane: 3- Sorcerer, Witch, Wizard
Full Divine: 3- Cleric, Druid, Oracle
6th level Arcane: 2- Bard, Summoner
6th level Divine: 1- Inquisitor
4th level Divine: 2- Paladin, Ranger
Leftovers: 3- Alchemist, Monk, Rouge
If you look at this you will notice that one too few 6th level arcane casters, two missing 6th level divine casters, one missing 4th level divine caster and three missing 4th level arcane casters.
I have no idea if there will ever be a plan to balance this but if you look at it like this you can see what I’m saying.
It seems to me that if there was going to be any class balance planed there will need to be seven new classes after the Advanced Players Guide.
You are saying that there will have to be more classes for 'class balance' reasons? Huh? Why?
Yes, there shouldn't be one full warrior class only and seven full arcane classes in this game. But there's no reason to go for an absolute balance like you described imo.
I understand what you’re saying and in truth I am a fan of the full warrior but lets say for instance you like the 6th level spell divine character well then you’re stuck with one class. I will also admit to being a fan of “give me as many classes as you can make” but look at the layout from some one who only has one or two options compared to the options that give you three classes, I do understand why people don’t want to over do it with classes and I would rather no new classes than a bad class but like I said look at it from some one who doesn’t get a fair choice, or even worse there is no option to play a class that is a 4th spell level arcane caster.
You know... when I'm chosing a class, the last thing that concerns me is whether it's 6th or 4th level divine caster.
i think that some times you need to do things for fairness sake and i understand some resistance to what i'm saying but a game like this should cover all the bases and have an equal amount of content for all gamers
I think you've misunderstood what people mean when they talk about "class balance"; they talk about that one class shouldn't completely outshine another. It's not that there should be an equal amount of different types of classes.
But if you want a divine caster with six spell levels - why not multiclass? Sure, it's not optimized, but it'll get the work done. Want a sneaky divine caster? Rogue 9/Cleric 11 will get you your 6th level spells as well as other abilities.
I would love to hear from Paizo on there opinion on this, and would like to know if they have considered this
I would love to hear from Paizo on there opinion on this, and would like to know if they have considered this
What is this. I don't even-
What, in any form or consideration, would this type of symmetry add to the game? How is this even a consideration to your play-style or a factor in what type of character you choose to play?
The suggestion that this somehow needs to be addressed shows a galactic misunderstanding of the principles of game design (most importantly the rule that symmetry for symmetry's sake is boring). In addition your vaguely worded post and poorly specified, outlined and elucidated points make me think that perhaps you're confused, or trolling.
Do *you* select your classes by the number of spell levels that they get?
"If you like the sixth level divine character"
If you're picking by spell levels, why *not* just take the class that gets nine levels? Why do you need a four level arcane caster if you can have a nine level one?
What does 'being fair' have to do with *any* of this? And 'an equal amount of content for all gamers' doesn't even parse in english. I apologize for pointing this out, it seems pretty clear that english isn't your first language.
Please clarify your points.
Ok if I understand this right, he wants full fighter based classes that are devoid of magic and his only options are 1) Barbarian 2) Fighter and 3) Cavalier
Now I have no problem with more full fighter base classes but you could really build just about any kind of full fighter from the Fighter class. A dual wielding warrior, a two handed expert, an archer, one of those proffesional knife throwers at the carnival, a swashbuckler, or an unarmed pit fighter are all options with just that class.
All I seem to be hearing is “no more classes” so I’m just going to drop this here.
All I seem to be hearing is “no more classes” so I’m just going to drop this here.
They're not saying "no more classes."
They're saying "no more classes just cuz."
Ultimately there's no reason to fill the grid. A class should exist because it fills a role and does something cool. Making a class just to make a symmetrical class spreadsheet is kinda pointless.
All I seem to be hearing is “no more classes” so I’m just going to drop this here.They're not saying "no more classes."
They're saying "no more classes just cuz."
Ultimately there's no reason to fill the grid. A class should exist because it fills a role and does something cool. Making a class just to make a symmetrical class spreadsheet is kinda pointless.
Thank you, you feel like the first person to just talk to me and not seem to be yelling at me, I know no one is yelling but your response feels nicer
Yeah, I'm not quite thinking the exact level of symmetry that you have outlined is needed, but if you can pull it off and tie it to a decent concept, then its good. I don't think we need all of those niches filled, but I have to agree that from the core rulebook I wasn't against seeing some filled.
For example, I do think a full spontaneous divine caster makes perfect sense along with having full arcane prepared and spontaneous casters. On the other hand, the "minor caster" and "three quarter" caster classes don't really feel, to me, like something that needs to have counterparts automatically.
The bard's role tends to have a few emergency abilities to fill in for other classes in a pinch, and as arcane casters they can actually heal, which is a rarity. To me, that "emergency patch job" aspect of the bard means you don't really need a divine "three quarter" caster . . . but . . .
Given that Pathfinder draws heavily from pulp fiction, the inquisitor as a Solomon Kane/Van Helsing type character being worked into a "three quarter" caster works for me, especially since the paladin is much more of a champion than a hunter, and the ranger is much more "nature hunter" than "organized church sanctioned hunter."
So that's an example of where something might fit in the grid and have a good solid concept tied to it that I could go for.
Well, I don't see anyone yelling around here. Overal concentrations of exclamation marks and capital letters isn't out of ordinary banter levels elsewhere ;)
I would love to hear from Paizo on there opinion on this, and would like to know if they have considered thisWhat is this. I don't even-
What, in any form or consideration, would this type of symmetry add to the game? How is this even a consideration to your play-style or a factor in what type of character you choose to play?
The suggestion that this somehow needs to be addressed shows a galactic misunderstanding of the principles of game design (most importantly the rule that symmetry for symmetry's sake is boring). In addition your vaguely worded post and poorly specified, outlined and elucidated points make me think that perhaps you're confused, or trolling.
Do *you* select your classes by the number of spell levels that they get?
"If you like the sixth level divine character"If you're picking by spell levels, why *not* just take the class that gets nine levels? Why do you need a four level arcane caster if you can have a nine level one?
What does 'being fair' have to do with *any* of this? And 'an equal amount of content for all gamers' doesn't even parse in english. I apologize for pointing this out, it seems pretty clear that english isn't your first language.
Please clarify your points.
He didn't shoot your mom, he just pointed out what he perceives as a lack of options for those who want (if it's ok with Your Snobbiness) to play a 6th-level divine class. Your lack of courtesy makes me think that perhaps you're in need of some socialization.
April 1st is coming sooner every year. And the new year isn't even here yet! ;-P
|
@northbrb, and everyone else who makes this mistake: it is roGUe, NOT roUGe!!! The "G" and the "U" are not adjacent on the keyboard so really there is no reason for this error. Please folks, spell "rogue" properly. Thank you. (I know, I know, I'm not the first to blast a clarion call regarding the spelling of "rogue" -- but people have been making this mistake since 2000. Incredible. What gives?)
Okay, on to subject... northbrb, I think I actually understand what you're saying. You'd like to see greater symmetry between the choices in class mechanics. While I don't think it necessary, I do like the notion that there are mechanical slots open for use for some new classes. Why not have a class that only has 4 arcane spell levels? Could be interesting. But I think the whole class concept has to be interesting -- something new that just happens to use the paladin/ranger spell progression but with in arcane magic. Perhaps someone will hatch a cool idea, but IMHO it shouldn't exist solely to exploit a "hole" in the diversity of class mechanics. Likewise for the others you listed. Interesting way to look at it though. :-)
-W.
The "rouge" has bothered me since Rogue Squadron came out for the Super Nintendo... it's even worse when you hear people you thought were smart saying "rouge" out loud. It's no longer a mistake, it's being done on purpose.
I had actual arguments over that one actually... the person thought it was a french thing (rouge squadron = red squadron, etc). Just saying it in my head as I read this makes me have a twinge in between my shoulder blades... as if grammatical nerd rage had some actual physical location for me.
Anyways...
I think something that is being discounted here is multi-classing. Besides simply alternating about 7 levels of wizard into whatever warrior class you wanted, there's whole Prestige Classes based around making a warrior/rogue + arcane caster multiclass effective.
Pick up about 4 or 5 of any of Arcane Archer, Dragon Disciple, Eldritch Knight, or Arcane Trickster (depending on the flavour of your non-caster classes), combined with all those 4, 6 and 9 casting classes, and you have pretty much any number of combinations you could want.
If Paizo really was concerned about adequate "role representation" (your reference to class balance is incorrect), then I suspect they would look at far different categories. In general, the roles are already well filled out. It is nice to have more options via additional classes (or PrC's), but there are certainly no class roles that are lacking. If I had to define the roles in the broadest of terms, I would just lump them into 1 of 3 categories:
Warrior
Spellcaster
Utility
Based on these categories, there is good equal role representation:
Warrior
Barbarian, Fighter, Cavalier, Ranger, Paladin
Spellcaster
Sorcerer, Witch, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Oracle
Utility
Bard, Summoner, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Monk, Rouge
It all depends on what concepts you can make with the current classes, new classes are meant to fill a niche not already covered by the core classes, and while i disagree with the necessity of some of the classes (*cough* Inquisitor and Cavalier) I think the abundance of casters is because of the variety of magic in fiction and folklore.
Shush, don't distract the orcs wif spelling
Rouge the rogue, a rouge haired gnome with a rather rogue haircut would agree with me.
Well,I understand what the OP was referring to. To expand on his thought, and to correlate it a little different,I would suggest looking at it as there are 3 less then full level divine casters and 2 less then full arcane casters. In this way of looking at it only 1 role would need to be filled. Trying to find a roll to fill that spot however is/can be harder than you would think. You could co with a arcane variant of paladin or ranger. Perhaps the different concepts for the bard they are planning on releasing in the APG might fit the role. I think that the place the roll may fit the best is something along the line of arcane rogue. Not the standard multiclass and not the bard, but something of its own. With its own quirks and nuances that make it unique and interesting. I feel the warrior type has many spots filled but there are only 2 rogue type classes. Just my thoughts.
Don't forget all the classes you could convert from 3.5 as well! Essentially, as long as the players can find the class they want and play it, and it's not horribly unbalanced, there is no problem.
I worry that this is imposing an order based on an metric that isn't necessarily relevant to the game. Cleric, for instance, is the most versatile class in the game in my opinion — each domain creates what might as well be an entire class, doesn't that bloat the number of 9 level divine casters?
As human beings, we certain crave symmetry, but I don't think the OP really established a mandate for more 6 level casters — we're introducing two in the near future, that's enough for me.